Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 03/16/1982CITY COUNCIL MARCH 16, 1982 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Tuesday, March 16, 1982 at 7:30 pm in the City Hall Mini-Conference Room, 575 Dorset St. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Howard Perkett, William Burgess Members Absent Hugh Marvin, Michael Flaherty, City Manager William J. Szymanski Others Present David Minnich, Assistant City Manager; Lansing Reinholz, Kevin Hayes, Charles Balserus Meet with Police Association to continue review of contract Messrs. Farrar and Reinholz initialled portions of the contract on which agreement had been reached. Mr. Reinholz then said there were three situations Mr. Hayes wanted to discuss with the Council which have not been proposed for change in the contract, but which, if there is a misunderstanding of the practice or language, it might be easier to clear up now than through the grievance procedure. At this point, the bargaining unit left the room so the Council could discuss this with the Assistant City Manager. When they returned, Mr. Farrar said the Council did not want to cut off discussion, but they did not want to discuss specific incidents. He said that if there was language which the union felt could be clarified, if they would tell the Council what the language was, they could look at it. Mr. Reinholz said the union believed that Article XIII, Section 1Bb meant that if someone was promoted to a position, or newly assigned, they would receive a clothing allowance of $350. If they are not permanently assigned they will not receive the allowance, but the union feels that once someone is promoted to a position, that is his/her position even if the person is on probation for 6 months. Mr. Farrar said the language might be interpreted as stating that the allowance would be received either on promotion, or on completion of the probation period and he assumed that the union wanted it to be received on promotion. Mr. Reinholz said that was what the union thought it said. The second item was in Article IV, which deals with prior rights and benefits. It is the union's understanding of that article that any right or benefit previously enjoyed would stay in effect unless the contract is changed, even if the right or benefit was not addressed by the contract. Mr. Farrar felt the language here was as clear as it could be and he suggested that if the union felt something was happening which was protected under this language, it should proceed by filing a grievance, but he added that perhaps another, more informal procedure could be set up to deal with some of these kinds of issues. The third item concerned payroll. Mr. Reinholz said promotions were made March 1 and no one has yet received their new pay. Mr. Minnich said he would look into it. Mr. Reinholz handed out a redraft of the language in Article XXII, Section 12B. It reads as follows: "Association input will be sought and considered during the development of a new evaluation plan and subsequent changes." This was agreed to by both sides and changes the union's proposed wording, on page 18. Mr. Reinholz noted that in Article XXII, Section 15, discussion centered on protection of someone who had been promoted. Article XII deals with seniority and includes everyone in the department, top to bottom. The union's concern is that someone promoted would maintain their seniority through the probationary period as far as the bargaining unit is concerned. That way, if they did not make it through the probation, or if at a later date they decided to return to the bargaining unit, they would not bump someone with less time in the department, but more in the bargaining unit. The person would not lose the years he spent in the unit before the promotion. Mr. Farrar did not think the language did what the union wanted it to. He added that seniority was used for a lot of different things and he wanted to be sure everyone knew which seniority would be used for which things, if a new type of seniority were to be added. Seniority is now used for overtime, off-duty work, vacations, etc. He felt language would have to be added which would start out like "For the purpose of determining seniority for . . ." and then those items would have to be listed. Mr. Reinholz said it would be for duty assignments, days off, vacations, and other aspects of work. Mr. Perkett suggested language along the lines of "For those conditions for which this contract applies which have to do with seniority, seniority shall be calculated . . ." and then that would be spelled out. Mr. Farrar asked whether probationary time before entering and after leaving the bargaining unit would be included and was told it would. Mr. Reinholz said he would draft some language on this. Mr. Reinholz noted that the city had been through all the articles once and that about 6 were on hold and 14-15 were economic issues. He said he would like to resolve the non-economic issues now. In Article I, Section I, the union said they proposed to sign the current language in the contract. In Article II, "employee" has been changed to "bargaining unit" and "SBPOA" has been removed. The union proposes to sign the language as is with that change. Mr. Reinholz noted that although the city had proposed to add a lot of language to this article, they had proposed no change to Article IV, which protects prior rights and benefits. The union feels that if it accepts the city's proposal, that would knock out Article IV. Mr. Burgess felt the language the city was proposing to protect its rights was more restrictive on the city than the language the union had to protect its rights was on the union. Mr. Farrar felt both sections said the same thing, but he noted that Mr. Reinholz felt that the city's proposed language would take away all the prior rights of the members unless they were set out in the contract. Mr. Farrar asked whether, if that concern were erased, there would be a problem with the rest of the language and Mr. Reinholz replied that the union did not like any of the language. Mr. Burgess asked about removing the words from "Unless" to "otherwise". Mr. Reinholz said he did not object to language that the union agrees that all rights and benefits of the city will stay in effect unless abridged by this contract, but he felt the city already had that. He did not feel there was a management right which had not been ruled upon by the Labor Board. This issue was discussed further. Mr. Reinholz felt the city's rights were protected by statute, but he said the union would be willing to add language similar to Article IV under the Management's Rights article. On Article XII, Mr. Reinholz said they were waiting for new language and Mr. Minnich said he would have it ready by next week. In Article XIII, the union is holding on Section 1Ah. Mr. Farrar asked whether the proposed revolvers were all right with the union and was told they were. It was felt this section could be resolved later. In Section 7, Mr. Reinholz said the union had been told the screens were in the budget. He wanted to be sure they were put in the cars. In Section 8, Mr. Minnich said those lights were also in the budget. Mr. Burgess said he did not want that in the contract in principle. Mr. Reinholz stated that that was it except for economic issues. At this point the union left the room and the Council discussed the proposals. When the union returned, Mr. Farrar said the city would accept the union's proposal on Article I. He felt more discussion was needed on Article II. In regard to the screens and lights in Article XIII, he said those were in the budget and the city felt they had been adequately addressed and that it would prefer to leave things as they were. Mr. Reinholz noted that in Article IX, Section 1, the members understood that the money was not a "bonus" and that the city had offered to give it to them when it was earned, but they would rather have it in one check. He said the union would agree to language which would make it clear it was not a "bonus". Mr. Minnich was asked to come up with some language on that. In Section 15, Mr. Reinholz said the only difference was who was going to be included. He said that under this proposal the person currently in the detective position would receive $20 less. Mr. Reinholz felt the city and union were a long way apart on economic issues. Mr. Farrar asked the union its position. He felt it was a question of the magnitude of the dollars, not where they were put. Mr. Reinholz said no one liked the present dental plan, which uses a "usual and customary" schedule. He added that no one liked the pay plan tied to evaluations. They feel evaluations are misused. Mr. Farrar asked the union's rationale for requesting an increase in the total dollar figure of the magnitude they have requested. Mr. Reinholz said they did not expect to get everything they asked for. He noted that the union wanted some items which were not salary but which did cost money, like the disability benefit. On the retirement issue, Mr. Farrar felt it did not make sense for the city to add more money to that when an individual could do that himself and receive the same tax advantage and Mr. Reinholz agreed, if the Council was proposing an increase such that a person could afford to save some money. Mr. Farrar felt it might be good to compare this department to others in the area. It was decided to schedule a meeting next Tuesday and if the Council could not get a quorum, the union would be informed. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.